GUPTESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, baffled with mistaken perception of intrusion over the track of judicial course by investigating agency of the Police, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for exercise of inherent powers under are raised that though the provisions mandated by Section 178(8) of the Code did not preclude further investigation of the offence by the Police, notwithstanding submission of charge sheet, the law makers would not have visualised that even when there was major breakthrough in the proceeding after submission of charge sheet in the court, and not only that the cognizance had been taken but even two witnesses had been examined by the State, that the Police would be committing intrusion in the dominion of the Court resuming further investigation, and that too without obtaining leave of the court. The grievance of the learned counsel is that since the petitioner during cross examination of the witnesses had disclosed all his defence, further investigation at this stage by the police would seriously prejudice him and if such overdoing committed by the Police is given a licence by the Court, there would be no end and independency of the magistracy and judiciary in the interest of purity would be in serious crisis. Grievance of the petitioner was also that even copy of the letter by which the Court was moved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, informing investigation having been taken by the Vigilance had not been made over to the accused, 4. Statutory right of the Police to investigate into cognizable offence has well been recognised, which is not fettered, and does not terminate with the submission of charge sheet in the Court. Even prior to enactment of 1973 Act, Courts have time and again reiterated that submission of charge sheet itself would not bring an end to the power of the investigating agency and it is entitled to make further investigation and bring further and better material before the Court to connect the accused with the alleged crime. The Courts have found that investigating agency can make further investigation to find whether the section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') though time and again courts have reiterated that Court would not be justified in riding a chariot over the track of investigation and thereby, obliterating the same.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix, which are not in much details, are that a first information report bearing Gardanibagh P. S. Case No. 105 of 1996 came to be registered by the Police against four persons, and on conclusion of investigation, Police laid three sets of charge sheet on strength of which cognizance of offence was taken by Court by different orders against four different persons. After charges were framed and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and proceeding was adjourned for recording evidence, when till 18th October, 2001, the State examined two witnesses and also placed on the record some documents. Thereafter, it seems that there was no breakthrough in the proceeding and a petition filed by one of the accused put on trial, too remained inconclusive for hearing. However, sequence of events which came to be witnessed in the proceeding has persuaded, the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of this Court. It so happened that in pursuance of notification bearing no. 10166/98 issued by the Government of Bihar (Home), Police Department, further investigation was entrusted to Vigilance Investigation Bureau. Since the Chief Judicial Magistrate by then had transferred, the proceeding to other Court pursuant to cognizance having been taken of the offence, on being moved, directed transfer of the said proceeding to the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. After proceeding came on transfer to the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna on 6th May, 2003, it was registered as Special Case No. 6 of 2003 and eventually proceeding was adjourned by the Court.